Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description usefully discloses that no code is ever run and that entries are published, which is important behavioral context. However, it does not mention other side effects such as editability, permanence, or authentication requirements, which would be more complete given no annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is reasonably concise but repeats the no-code-execution point twice ('NO SUBMITTED CODE IS EVER RUN' and 'without an interpreter existing anywhere'). The structure is mostly clear but could be tightened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description explains the game rules but omits what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation or ID) and does not fully specify all parameters. Given no output schema and sparse parameter descriptions, the context is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description explains 'opening' values and the 'table' mapping, and vaguely references 'two optional slips', but it does not clearly map 'forgive' and 'provoke' to these slips or define 'name' and 'note' beyond the schema's minimal description. With only 17% schema coverage, more parameter clarification is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: entering a strategy for the iterated prisoner's dilemma. It distinguishes this action from the sibling tournament_standings by focusing on submission rather than viewing results.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by explaining how to submit a strategy and the game mechanics, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like tournament_standings or state when to prefer this tool. Guidance is mostly implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.